Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eregyrn's avatar

Good and necessary article. Like you, I'm a "fan" of the National Parks, of conservation, wildlife, and "wilderness", who has come to grapple with the contradictions inherent in the concept. I DID know much of what you relate here, from further reading on these figures. Both Muir and Roosevelt are complex figures, and I don't think either of them should be excused at all as "products of their time" (there were plenty of people, in their time and before, who did not hold their racist views; and even if both of them evolved in some ways over time, their legacies are checkered). I can still see the value in even the Ken Burns series... but it's better if you temper it with attention paid to what it doesn't say or cover. (I wonder how different it would be if he made it today?)

I'm not really sure what "the answer" is. But I also feel that if we don't have the perfect, all-encompassing answer to this history (and the wrongs done) or to this present, it shouldn't keep us from trying to address "smaller"-scale problems on the way towards trying to solve the bigger ones. Such as, trying indeed to make the Parks belong to, and accessible to, more Americans than just affluent white people. (I put "smaller" in quotation marks there, because that itself isn't a small problem at all.)

Expand full comment
lacroixshotgun's avatar

As a frequent user of public lands I found this piece very interesting and thought-provoking.

As a minor aside my hot take is that national parks, while beautiful, are generally lame due to tons of people, fees, and restrictions on fun stuff like hiking and camping: preservation is the focus. National forests and bureau of land management land however are way overlooked and where most of the fun is in my experience

Expand full comment
13 more comments...